Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,

Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.

Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:

if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.

Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Civil commitment of sex offenders is the latest frontier of escalating misandry, at least in the USA. A long and thorough article in The New Yorker delineates this burgeoning avenue of systematic and institutionalized hatred against men: "The Science of Sex Abuse" by Rachel Aviv.

By way of example, a man called John is already imprisoned for 12 years with no end in sight, only for viewing pornography and entrapment by predatory cops who masquerade as underage girls online.

You see, the feminist state is not satisfied with locking up men for the duration of our already absurdly draconian prison terms for phony sex crimes. While, for example, sentencing for possessing child pornography has increased by over 500% in the past 15 years to 119 months on average, the prison term is only the beginning if you are a sex offender. When you are supposed to get out is when the potential life sentence begins, all made possible by the Adam Walsh Act of 2006.

In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which its sponsor described as the “most comprehensive child crimes and protection bill in our Nation’s history.” It allows the federal Bureau of Prisons to keep inmates in prison past their release date if it appears that they’ll have “serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.” Their extended confinement is achieved through civil commitment, a legal procedure more often used to hospitalize patients who have severe mental illness, usually bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. The law is named after Adam Walsh, a seven-year-old boy who was kidnapped at a mall and decapitated. (His father went on to host “America’s Most Wanted.”) Since the nineties, twenty states have passed similar statutes, known as sexually-violent-predator laws, for offenders who suffer from “volitional impairment”—a legal term that does not correspond to any medical diagnosis. (...) In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that sexually-violent-predator state laws are constitutional, because they adhere to the medical model of commitment, by which patients who pose a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from leaving a hospital. To be detained, inmates must have a psychiatric illness or “mental abnormality”—typically sexual in nature—that renders them out of control.

And it doesn't take much to be deemed a “sexually dangerous” offender and hence be detained indefinitely after serving your regular prison term. Any semblance of masculinity will suffice to doom you in the eyes of your feminist overseers.

John waited for his civil-commitment hearings at the Devens prison, and although he had completed his prison term, his daily routine was largely unchanged. He wore the same uniform as other inmates and was subject to the same punishments, schedule, and rules. During a routine shakedown six months after his detainment, guards confiscated an accordion file in his cell containing more than a hundred pages of drawings and notes. A prison psychologist wrote that the papers, “when considered in their totality,” suggest that John “believes children are sexual beings who can consent to sex.” John appeared to be searching for ways to justify his desires. “Our culture has a fear of (children’s) sexuality,” he wrote on one page. “Strictly speaking a girl between 13 and 17 is not a child,” he wrote on another.

Yes, merely speaking the truth about teenage sexuality can be enough to get you indefinitely locked up. Truths I routinely promote on my blog would ensure that I never would get out of prison if I found myself in the nightmare of civil commitment as a sex offender. I fully admit to being a "sexually dangerous person" by feminist standards and I swear I would never go along with their charade and pretend to hold politically correct views on sexuality even if my freedom depended on it.

This is similar to the Norwegian travesty of preventative detention ("forvaring"), which is increasingly common even for trivial sex crimes and enables the same kind of indefinite imprisonment for hypothetical future crimes, except in the American system you don't even need to be sentenced to preventative detention in the first place. Any ostensibly time-limited sentence will do, even for victimless and completely bogus crimes constructed entirely by police deception.

The article also describes the utter corruption which passes as "research" on pedophilia and sex offenses. Prisoners are coerced into confessing false crimes against imaginary victims, and then this is used as "evidence" for continued incarceration and also published in the scholarly journals of the abuse industry, where such lies become mythology and form the basis of further escalation of hateful laws and policies against male sexuality. Thus when feminist judges and legislators cite studies like the “Butner Study Redux” from 2009 in the Journal of Family Violence which purports to show that men convicted of child pornography are 85% likely to also have committed physical sex crimes, we know it is hogwash, concocted by good old feminist methodology:

The program required that its hundred and twelve patients accept
responsibility for a life of deviant behavior and thoughts—a philosophy
common to most treatment programs. Since sex crimes are vastly
underreported, it is reasonable to expect that inmates have committed
more crimes than their records reveal. At a professional workshop,
Hernández explained that he created a climate of “systematic pressure,”
so that inmates would “put all the cards on the table,” abandoning a
“life style of manipulation.” Patients were required to compose lists of
people they had sexually harmed, which they updated every few months.
At daily community meetings, when offenders insisted that they had
nothing left to disclose, other prisoners accused them of being in
denial or “resistant to change.” If they failed to accept
responsibility, they were expelled from the program. For sex
offenders, who occupy the bottom of the prison power hierarchy, the
Butner unit was a safe haven in the federal prison system. One
child-pornography convict, Markis Revland, told the judge at his
civil-commitment hearing that when prisoners discover a sex offender
among them “they’ll go to great lengths to stab that person.” He
requested treatment at Butner after being raped at knifepoint in a
Kansas penitentiary. He was encouraged by the psychology staff at Butner
to “get it all out,” and came up with a hundred and forty-nine victims.
Like other patients, he kept a “cheat sheet” in his cell so that he
could remember his victims’ ages and the dates that he’d abused them.
There was no evidence for the crimes, thirty-four of which would have
occurred during a time when Revland was incarcerated.

I recommend reading Rachel Aviv's article in full. Read it and hate. This glimpse of truth is apt to inspire hatred against the scumbags in law enforcement and the rest of the abuse industry more than I am able to myself on my humble incitatory blog. After prolonged exposure to escalating misandry I hate cops so profoundly that words fail me and eloquence deserts me (due to all the stress hormones associated with raw hatred), but this is mainstream reporting, which is somewhat encouraging. Cops are truly the scum of the earth and I hate their guts for their persecution of male sexuality on the basis of feminist sex laws. While many so-called MRAs these days sadly are busy promoting the feminist sex abuse industry as long as it upholds equal injustice for women as well as men, I direct my activist hatred squarely where it is deserved at the feminist sex abuse industry itself and its core values. Those core values are hatred of normal male sexuality, plain and simple, and the only rational thing for men to do is to band together and fight back against the abuse industry. In practice, this probably means working for the collapse of Western civilization since feminism and manginas are now clearly endemic to it, but so be it, because this is not a society I want to live in.